To stack or not to stack

gardenersassistant wrote:

To avoid the confusion (and around here at least, the arguments) that can arise over the 1:1 definition I tend to talk in terms of scene widths when comparing kit, and tend to refer to my images as close-ups, even when they are of rather small subjects like springtails and barkflies. (Unlike the problems that can arise when using the term "macro", no one has ever objected to my use of "close-ups" for images they would define as macros.)

It depends on the context. Around here you sometimes have to be rather precise about things in order to (try to) avoid contention. In other places I find it works fine to talk about my invertebrate images as macros in contradistinction to my botanical images which I refer to as close-ups, even though most of my small sensor invertebrate images are not macros according to the 1:1 definition.

I always stay with the actual definition of macro: Projecting a 1:1 scale image of the subject onto the sensor. You hit on some of the reasons why it's important, but the main reason for me is the light. As the magnification increases the available surface area that's reflecting light back into the lens drops. So getting enough good light onto the subject becomes difficult. In addition the 1/focal length rule for hand holding a lens breaks down the closer the sensor is to the subject. I've gotten into too many arguments over light and macro motion blur with someone only to realize that they've never taken a photo that's even close to 1x.